Talk:Tropical cyclones and climate change/Archive 1

Archive 1

Attribution

This article was created from material in a previously created article on alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrine. Complete edit history can be found at Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Alternative theories page history. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Waffles?

This article is waffle and it should only be included in the Hurricane Katrina article or nowhere at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.164.115.67 (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience article

Just delete it. It attracts editors who ignore the actual peer-reviewed science (see section below) and believe fringe theories like assuming that warmer water in the gulf is evidence of global warming (acting as if as if the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation and Loop Current don't exist). Wikipedia needs to present what the majority of actual scientists believe. This article presents what is found in an op-ed in The Boston Globe, statements by politicians, and the opinions of one highly politicized blog. Replace The Boston Globe with The Wall Street Journal, replace the UK prime minister with the senior United States senator from Oklahoma, and replace RealClimate with Watts Up With That? and you would have an article that is biased in the other direction -- and the article would still ignore the peer-reviewed science. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

WP rightly does plenty in Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Orgone, Hollow Earth, Lemuria, Creation science Phrenology, Psychics and many others. Populist nonsense, alas, is sometimes powerful politically or commercially. This case is the former, so we should start an appropriate pseudoscience article. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Second the motion, but not willing to go through the hell that certain editors will put me through if I created such an article. Any volunteers with a love of actual science and a very thick skin? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

So, we seem to lack opposition to the idea that this theory is as deserving as Spontaneous human combustion which leaves the question of name. Treating it as a scientific theory suggests the "tropical cyclone" version, but treating it as political raises the question of "whose politics?" Seems to me public attention is entirely devoted to the North Atlantic, which suggests that "hurricane" is more appropriate. Other opinions? Jim.henderson (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipolitical matters distracted me for a few days. Absent objections, I'm choosing Hurricanes and climate change on grounds of political correctness. There is a possibility that future research will convert the question from one of politics to one of science, thus suggesting another rename. To me the risk seems small, so I intend to wait another few days, then move it. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

See my comment in the section immediately above. I believe that any useful content be merged into the Hurricane Katrina article, and that this page is redirected there, since this article is quite minimal and biased too much to one side. The rest of the useless/sensationalist content should jsut be deleted. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's no longer immediately above, as I have made a new subsection to handle a more specific proposal. Your criticism of the article as it stands is entirely to my own thinking; only I have a different proposal. I wish not only to rename it but to expand it into a more thorough and even-handed study of one way in which mixing science and politics has poisoned both. Thoroughness will require merging similar tendentious articles about other hurricanes, whose warming articles are smaller because their coverage in the popular press has been less sensational. This difference arises not for scientific reasons, but for journalistic and political reasons. Thus the merged article will need balancing paragraphs patterned after the ones in this discussion pointing out the lack of scientific validity of the hypothesis. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why would we delete the article? It is a perfectly valid topic, and the subject of considerable scientific research William M. Connolley (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This article title was previously only about Katrina and Global Warming. Someone moved it to this general title which is more appropriate and merged(?) a more general article. --DHeyward (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out by Kerry Emanuel (the pre-eminent expert in this field) a Katrina-like eventually hitting New Orleans was a certainty, but the general point that hurricanes can reach a higher intensity in a warmer climate is in line with both intuitive thermodynamic theory and CMIP6 climate simulations. Therefore the shift to a more general article seems well justified. [a single reference is given here, but he has published scores of peer reviewed articles].Sdat2wiki (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Here is the science

Whether or not this article is merged, it should stop giving undue weight to a fringe theory. I have no problem with the fringe theory being mentioned, but the mainstream scientific view has been minimized and the fringe theory is being presented as being mainstream. Only material that can be cited to actual climate scientists publishing in peer-reviewed academic journals should be retained. No Time Magazine. No CNN. No realcliamate.org. No wattsupwiththat.com. Just report the mainstream scientific view.

Here is the science:

• "The most recent draft of a sweeping climate science report pulled together by 13 federal agencies as part of the National Climate Assessment suggested that the science linking hurricanes to climate change was still emerging. Looking back through the history of storms, 'the trend signal has not yet had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes,' the report states." --Source: The New York Times.[1]

• "According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, "The total number of hurricanes and the number reaching the United States do not indicate a clear overall trend since 1878" and "changes in observation methods over time make it difficult to know whether tropical storm activity has actually shown an increase over time." --Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency.[2]

• "Detection and attribution of past changes in tropical cyclone (TC) behavior remaim a challenge ... there is still low confidence that any reported long-term (multidecadal to centennial) increases in TC are robust... This is not meant to imply that no such increases in TC activity have occurred, but rather that the data are not of a high enough quality to determine this with much confidence. Furthermore, it has been argued that within the period of highest data quality (since around 1980) the globally observed changes in the environment would not necessarily support a detectable trend of tropical cyclone intensity (Kossin et al. 2013). That is, the trend signal has not had time to rise above the background variability of natural processes." --Source: Draft National Climate Assessment (section 9.2).[the Draft National Climate Assessment

• "Observed regional climate variability comprises a number of factors, both natural and anthropogenic, and the response of tropical cyclones to each factor is not yet well understood. Long-term trends in tropical climate due to increasing greenhouse gas can be regionally dominated by shorter-term decadal variability forced by both internal and external factors such as changes in natural and anthropogenic aerosol concentrations ... In concert with these natural and anthropogenic external forcings, internal variability can play a substantial, and possibly dominant, role in regional decadal variability. Thus, when interpreting the global and regional changes in tropical cyclone intensity shown in the present work, it is clear that framing the changes only in terms of linear trends forced by increasing well-mixed greenhouse gasses is most likely not adequate to provide a complete picture of the potential anthropogenic contributions to the observed changes." --Source: NOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, University of Wisconsin–Madison.[3]

• "It is premature to conclude that human activities -- and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate)." --Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory[4]

• "The term climate change detection as used in this abstract refers to a change which is anthropogenic in origin and is sufficiently large that the signal clearly rises above the background “noise” of natural climate variability (with the “noise” produced by internal climate variability, volcanic forcing, solar variability, and other natural forcings). As noted in IPCC AR42, the rise of global mean temperatures over the past half century is an example of a detectable climate change; in that case IPCC concluded that most the change was very likely attributable to human-caused increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

• In the case of tropical cyclones, the WMO team concluded that it was uncertain whether any changes in past tropical cyclone activity have exceeded the levels due to natural climate variability. While some long (century scale) records of both Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm counts show significant rising trends, further studies have pointed to potential problems (e.g., likely missing storms) in these data sets due to the limited density of ship traffic in the pre-satellite era. After adjusting for such changes in observing capabilities for non-landfalling storms, one study found that the rising trend in tropical storm counts was no longer statistically significant. Another study noted that almost the entire trend in tropical storm counts was due to a trend in short-duration (less than two days) storms, a feature of the data which those authors interpreted as likely due in large part to changes in observing capabilities.

• A global analysis of tropical cyclone intensity trends over 1981-2006 found increases in the intensities of the strongest tropical cyclones, with the most significant changes in the Atlantic basin. However, the short time period of this dataset, together with the lack of 'Control run' estimates of internal climate variability of TC intensities, precludes a climate change detection at this point." --Source: Article in Nature Geoscience[5]

• "A satisfactory answer to the question of what sets the annual global rate of tropical cyclone formation, roughly 80 per year, has thus far evaded climate scientists. Several empirical relationships have been derived to relate tropical cyclone formation to large-scale climate variables, such as genesis potential indices, but there is to date no established theory relating tropical cyclone formation rate to climate." -Source: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science[6]

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

This is a collection of political quotes masquerading a science. There are many effects that drive Atlantic hurricanes, some on the order of 70 years. Wind shear, for example, is a condition affected by multiple events. ENSO, eastern pacific, western pacific and atlantic hurricanes are not independent. 2017 was raltively smaller western pacific hurricanes while atlantic hurricanes were near normal. --DHeyward (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your source for the claim that the Atlantic hurricane season is near normal? Also see WP:FORUM, since this talk page is not a place to voice your personal opinions. prokaryotes (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

NOAA and global warming graph

Editor DHeyward removed twice a graph showing increased global surface temperatures, and a NOAA graph which is center piece of a page dedicated to hurricanes and global warming at NOAA GFDL. The editor noted as reason = These statements are not supported by fact.

• The temp graph is lede image at the global warming article, and besides the CO2 increase among the best data highlighting climate change. A main driver for hurricane intensity, duration, are high SSTs a result from air temps. The NOAA graph shows two results based on modelling SSTs, one with higher PDI and one with modest results. Again, reflecting article space informations. The assertion that these data sets are not facts make WP:AGF almost void (and that came from what appears to be an experienced editor, with a history of climate related input). He also removed summary conclusions, based on NOAA GFDL. prokaryotes (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't like people reverting with "per BOLD" as their edit summary. The correct policy is WP:BRD. I'm not entirely convinced that https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ provides the support you want, either. Remember you're not supposed to us eit to just prop up what you want to say William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Vote for GW graph Should this article include the lede graph on surface temperatures, seen at global warming? Vote below. Yes, because this graph highlights climate change and the main force contributing to SSTs, and this could also be better explained in the article. prokaryotes (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC) No as unrelated to Hurricanes. ENSO would be a better graph. Hurricanes form in very specific locations under very specific conditions. No sources claim that the total NH + SH sea temp + land temps is relevant. What we do see is complex interaction of SST and wind conditions that favor or disfavor Hurricane formation. This article is completely U.S. centric focusing on Atlantic hurricanes and ignoring everything else. The biggest factor in hurricane production in the Atlantic is ENSO and wind shear. When Atlantic Hurricane are relatively low during El Nino. There are predictions that El Nino may be intensified by global warming which would literally tear apart Atlantic hurricanes. -DHeyward (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Vote for SST PDI model graph Should the article feature the NOAA GFDL graph on SSTs and PDI, seen here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VSS08-Figure-WMO_new_ab.png Yes, because it shows what model projections concluded in regards to SSTs and PDI. Alternatively we could use something similar. prokaryotes (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC) Comment The two graphs highlight the uncertainty of relating Atlantic SST to hurricanes. If the bottom graph is correct, it is a relative index between pacific tropical SST's and Atlantic SST's. Note, this invalidates using the land + sea graph as land temperatures are not mentioned as driver at all and NH temperature rises are dominated by rising arctic temperatures. This grapgh is a giant "we don't yet know" what will happen because factors like wind shear may increase in a way that diminishes hurricanes in the atlantic. Between 2005 and 2017 when there was elatively low Atlantic hurricanes but active in Western Pacific, the SST's were not low in the atlantic. Global warming did not go away for 12 years and neither did the atlantic cool. Rather the conditions generated lots of wind shear consisten with El Nino. --DHeyward (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Related studies refer most of the time to anthropogenic forcing, or are in line with those predictions, and between 2005 and 2017 were exceptional years (ie. 2007, 2013), but no major landfalling cane, except for Hurricane Irene 2011 (..exhibited an unusually low pressure), and Hurricane Sandy 2012 (Sandy broke records for the lowest pressures ever observed in many cities across the Northeastern United States.), if you consider this new phenomena of very large pressure systems and those landfall locations. The pressure and size of these storms and the rather unusual latitude create a tsunami like storm surge. And then there is this New form of El Nino may increase Atlantic hurricanes "It may be responding to some (climate) oscillation or it may be in response to global warming," prokaryotes (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Then write your paper and get it peer reviewed and published. So far experts have not seen what you have seen and you are still fixated only on Atlantic hurricanes and ignoring eastern and western pacific storms. You are also ignoring that 2017 is a typical year and matche the typical forecasts. You claims lack foundation. --DHeyward (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC) I am not against a broader scope or articles covering other basins. In essence, already the article addresses the global scope. prokaryotes (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Why has a sudden plague of voting broken out? I vote "no" to everything. The correct procedure is to try to discuss things and reach agreement; voting is a last refuge and clearly premature William M. Connolley (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Because two different graphs, and I think this is the best way to gauge editor opinion. prokaryotes (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion disagrees with you, as do I William M. Connolley (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC) Okay, then why don't you address my arguments at all (literally never when we engage....), see above. Basically when reworking the page considerably during the past 24 hours i thought these images are best fitted to present related sciences. We could also use SSt graphs, OHC, or other model results. What do you suggest, instead of just saying no to everything? prokaryotes (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2017 (UTC) As I explained at the start of this section, I am voting (not "saying") no to everything because I think voting is wildly premature. By adding all these votes you've just muddied the waters. If you agree that the votes are inappropriate, then please just collapse them, and we can continue the discussion that you've interrupted. If you insist on leaving the votes open you're causing the problem you're claiming to decry William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC) How do you collapse it, can you do that? prokaryotes (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of peer reviewed research

In this edit DHeyward removed peer-reviewed research. Making his third revert today, and this time stating in his edit summary "This is the definitive conclusion". I want to remind the editor that he is actually edit-warring, what appears to be based on his personal opinion on the subject. I want to wait now for other editors to respond here, and encourage the editor to explain here his actions. prokaryotes (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not my opinion, it's in every source you cited. It's the fundamental conclusion. There are lots of speculation including the Judith Curry Modoki paper you cited for El Nino increasing hurricanes which has not been borne out. Your zeal to tie specific hurricanes, hurricane seasons and only the atlantic basin is fringe. Hurricanes have long natural cycles and the reason they do not yet have a human fingerprint on them is because of their complex interractions. Warm easter Pacific equatorial water suppresses Atlantic hurricanes. That's a natural phenomena that is not well understood but it dwarfs all other correlations such as Atlantic SSTs, tropical waves abd Caribbean basin temps. If you wish to add stronger language, your sources shouldn't conclude there isn't a connection. --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The reference you left in above edit even mentions climate change and rainfalls. The hypothesis on El Nino Modoki was summarized in 2007 by a japanese scientist, but it is nowhere in the article cited, not part of the references you have removed. All these studies refer to future climate scenarios in one way or another. The review by NOAA is titled Global warming and hurricanes, that is pretty spot on. If you disagree with those findings you need to argue based on other peer-reviewed literature. Even then, the reliable sources you removed present what appears to be the current summary on the topic. Literally every news outlet cited those findings in recent coverage on hurricanes. It also essentially reflects the research section. You cannot just cherry pick what your opinion best fits, that's not how Wikipedia works. prokaryotes (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The Third Opinion request made in regard to this dispute has been removed (i.e. declined) because Third Opinion like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, requires a thorough talk page discussion attempting to work out the dispute before seeking assistance. With only one post by one editor, this can hardly been seen to be a thorough attempt to work out the problem. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. If still stuck once there has been thorough discussion, you can return to 3O or some other form of dispute resolution. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I already documented the conclusion of peer-reviewed science in the section Here is the science above.

What I am seeing in this article is the following:

1. Attempts to ignore the peer-reviewed science and replace it with pseudoscience published in the popular press.
2. Attempts to elevate the opinions of certain climate scientists with WP:FRINGE views as if they were mainstream.
3. Attempts to replace the actual peer-reviewed science about what we actually know with what (some) computer simulations predict will happen in the future.
4. Attempts to cherry pick those computer models that predict what the editor wants to be true while ignoring other computer models that don't predict what the editor wants to be true.
5. Ad hominem attacks, trying to paint those who want the article to reflect peer-reviewed science with the "global warming is a conspiracy" idiots.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Please provide edits which support your conclusion. prokaryotes (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

[7] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What? prokaryotes (talk) 18:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Attribution science

Sitting in a lecture about attribution by Hannah Nissan about a topic that's probably relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.henderson (talk • contribs) 17:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Scope

Why is does this focus on only hurricanes (and mostly just the Atlantic, not the Pacific east of the dateline)? The article should be "Tropical cyclones and climate change" so as to also include such storms in the West Pacific, South Pacific, Indian Ocean, etc. Master of Time (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not against a broader scope. Here is one article, Asian typhoons becoming more intense, study finds prokaryotes (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A broader scope is a good idea. The reason why we don't see much coverage of, say pacific ocean hurricanes that hit Mexico is that they tend to veer off and miss California, whereas hurricanes in the Atlantic tend to hit the east coast of the US. That may be a fine reason for The New York Times to give them more coverage, but Wikipedia should be less US-Centric and more global in scope. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Public perception

If this article becomes bigger, and we begin to cover other demographics (ie. see this survey http://taiseen.org.tw/en/active_areashow.php?cid=412 ), and with more coverage, we could give that topic it's own article.prokaryotes (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Hurricane Katrina and global warming be merged into Hurricane Katrina. I think that the content is not too extensive to be merged into the main article space. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy#Relation_to_global_warming prokaryotes (talk) 22:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't think of any reason this should remain an independent article. --BlackVegetable (talk) 00:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Although I would not necessarily be opposed to this if it were done, my !vote is against for now as the primary article may already be too lengthy to read and navigate comfortably. I personally think that the Hurricane Katrina and global warming article can certainly be expanded to go further in depth on the correlation or causation between increased water temperatures with increased storm intensity; this article already has a sentence mentioning it as a paraphrase from another article but to further elaborate further could be beneficial. That being said, this article if kept should undergo significant changes as it currently reads like an essay and comes off as "breaking the fourth wall" by being an article that directly mentions other articles rather than simply referencing them for information deemed relevant. I do support overhauling this article in any way that would offer the reader with the best access to relevant information, though I'd prefer that this article will be rewritten in part, reorganized, and expanded. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't personally think global warming needs to be immediately merged with the main Katrina article, rather instead keeping it separate, unless there's a section on the main Katrina article regarding speculation. Dekkyun (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging article contributors: Pinging William M. Connolley, Jehochman, Bearcat, Ed Poor, Vsmith, Alan Liefting, Master of Time, Nimloth250. prokaryotes (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see a strong case for changing the status quo at this time. bd2412 T 20:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
• The larger concept, if not specific to Katrina, certainly has a lot of coverage in reliable sources, so better expand that overview-level article before writing solely about the Katrina-specific relation. I recommend expanding the existing section at Tropical cyclone#Global warming and splitting out summary style to a dedicated article as appropriate. Plenty of sources between those in the aforementioned section, Hurricane Sandy#Relation to global warming, those related to Katrina, and those related to Harvey/Irma. Perhaps Tropical cyclones and global warming or Tropical cyclones in relation to global warming as the target. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, the claim of connection is discussed enough, mostly in sensationalist mass media and conservative propaganda. This material likes to connect global warming to particular storms that attract attention by hitting rich countries and damaging large amounts of property. This selectivity makes sense if you want to say the great goddess Gaea is attacking them in self defense. However, despite this foolish selectiveness of anecdote, the hypothesis, which is well covered in Tropical cyclone#Climate change, could get an article collecting the anecdotes. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Jim.henderson Do you have a suggestion for the naming? We could use this article here, move it to Hurricanes and climate change ? prokaryotes (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If such an article were created, Tropical cyclones and climate change or Tropical cyclones and global warming would be a more appropriate title. Master of Time (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Strong Support for Merger - This article is little more than a brief exposition that appears very one-sided, so it's merit as a separate article is very questionable. Also, it's shortness would allow it to be easily integrated into the main Hurricane Katrina article, similar to the Hurricane Sandy article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• On second thought, this article seems to have been expanded into a sizeable standalone article of its own, since this discussion opened. Just please keep it neutral and factually-balanced. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal

Based on above input I hereby propose to move the article to either Tropical cyclones and climate change or Hurricanes and climate change, then work into that article specific storm related coverage, based upon the entry summary from Tropical cyclone#Climate change, and from other storm articles. Below vote with either (TCCC, or HCC, depending on abbreviation, or vote No in case you are against move).

• HCC because that is the terminology we use in article space. prokaryotes (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • No it isn't. When referring to tropical cyclones in general, we overwhelmingly use the term "tropical cyclone." "Hurricane" is exclusive to only tropical cyclones in the Pacific east of the Dateline and the Atlantic, and even then, only for storms above a certain wind speed. Master of Time (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

What i meant is that articles are called Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Katrina and so on .... and the discussion is always about "Hurricane X", makes sense now? prokaryotes (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

It should just be deleted. We already have article on hurricane and climate change. The link of one storm to climate change is extremely tenuous. "Katrina and ENSO" is a much stronger pairing than with climate change, but that, too, is tenuous when applied to specific storms. --DHeyward (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Because tropical cyclone rainfall amounts are so closely tied to cyclone speed of motion, I suggest that someone edit the article to reflect that big/catastrophic rainfall from tropical cyclones is dominantly controlled by their forward speed of motion. Thus, linking TC forward speed changes (slight slowly) to increases in their rainfall would be reasonable, but tying global warming to TC rainfall increases from just a few slow(er) movers on the coast or inland would be scientifically irresponsible...unless there is a clear link between TC forward speed and global warming to be found. The text should reflect this. (S. Lyons, July, 2021)

2017 section is atrocious

Firstly, it starts with a synthesis. Hurricane storm surge is not significantly impacted by the millimeters of sea level rise. Tide and time of landfall literally swamp sea level rise. Tides vary every 6 hours on the order of feet, not millimeters. Water mass redistribution during ENSO cycles is currently being studied as well as gyre formation and changes but saying "CO2" fails to recognize the natural cycles. Quotes by politicians don't lend weight to climate change attributions to tropical cyclones. The defining quote from NHC and IPCC is still the scientific view. --DHeyward (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, we seem to have crossed. I think pretty well the whole thing is atrocious. Nonetheless it ought to exist, just better William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The part on SLR, cites WAPO, which links to this PNAS study, Increased threat of tropical cyclones and coastal flooding to New York City during the anthropogenic era prokaryotes (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

From the PNAS study abstract: In a changing climate, future inundation of the United States’ Atlantic coast will depend on both storm surges during tropical cyclones and the rising relative sea levels on which those surges occur. However, the observational record of tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic basin is too short (A.D. 1851 to present) to accurately assess long-term trends in storm activity. To overcome this limitation, we use proxy sea level records, and downscale three CMIP5 models to generate large synthetic tropical cyclone data sets for the North Atlantic basin; driving climate conditions span from A.D. 850 to A.D. 2005. storm surge model results for New York City, exposing links between increased rates of sea level rise and storm flood heights. Look at their "Anthropogenic era." Compare with AR5. They have already concluded that storms since 1970 are more intense. But that's not the start of the "anthropogenic era." Aside from the obvious "A.D. 1851 to present is too short" so they used "A.D.1970–2005" instead, it simply restates what IPCC AR5 said which is low confidence in long term changes to cyclone intensity and frequency except for cyclones measured in the atlantic since 1970 which have gone up in intensityf/requency but with no attribution to cause (note that satellite observations started in the 1970's and cyclones derived from tropical waves off of Africa can form and dissipate without notice prior to satellites.). Between 2005 and 2017, Atlantic tropical cyclones have been below average as well (and that may very well be anthropogenic as wind shear has been the storm killer in otherwise favorable conditions but that is also "low confidence."). --DHeyward (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, as another aside, New York City and the Hudson River Valley is still reflexing from glacial retreat from the last ice age. Local sea level rise in that area over millenia are affected by glacial isostatic adjustment. Like a see-saw, as the mass of the glacier is reduced and different portions rise and fall. These changes are on the same order as anthropogenic sea level rise depending on location. New York City (or any local region) is not a good proxy for global indicators though it is very good information for those that live there. --DHeyward (talk)

Anthropogenic era refers obviously to Anthropocene, and if you want to make a case for a more reliable study, you need to cite a study. Also I suggest you look at the two other studies citing sea level rise, cited in the research section. prokaryotes (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not in your source. I cut and pasted it verbatim. The quote We compare pre-anthropogenic era (A.D. 850–1800) and anthropogenic era (A.D.1970–2005) is from the source. You don't seem to be aware of what your sources are saying. They reflect the same conclusion in AR5 which is not what you wrote. --DHeyward (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)